Λυσίου λόγον ἀκούων ἐκεῖνος οὐ μόνον ἅπαξ ἤκουσεν, ἀλλὰ πολλάκις ἐπαναλαμβάνων ἐκέλευέν οἱ λέγειν, ὁ δὲ ἐπείθετο προθύμως.
I’m wondering what οἱ (which I take to be nominative plural) is doing here. I would expect a dative singular: “was urging to recount to him…”
Hi, the clue is the accent on the syllable immediately before οἱ. Can you see why it can’t be the nom. pl. article?
Cheers, Chad
Yes, I missed that. So, it must be enclitic. My first thought was of οἷ but in the example in Dickey it does not seem to be enclitic. Can it, then, be used both ways? LSJ is not very clear on this point.
Is this the LSJ article you are looking at?http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=78130
Joeil – Yes.
Well that does discuss the enclitic form, I thought. Chandler does in some detail, starting in 944 and providing some rules in 945. If you read Herodotus, this is all over the place, but it’s still present in Plato and Xenophon often enough, though I have the impression (though I haven’t ever investigated) that it’s less frequent.
οἷ/enclitic οἱ (pl. σφίσι/encl. σφισι) is used as an indirect reflexive in Attic prose, as in the Plato example. (They can be non-reflexive pronouns in other dialects). The difference between the accented and enclitic forms is generally one of emphasis or contrast.
Instead of οἱ, it wouldn’t be unusual to see here ἑαυτῷ/αὑτῷ [note rough breathing] or αὐτῷ. The latter becomes increasingly common in the 4th c BCE and later.
I’m having trouble understanding what makes the Plato example reflexive. He doesn’t seem to be the subject of anything until ἐπείθετο.
Edit: the λεγειν too, I guess, instead of accusative (but dative so make κελευειν a request instead of an order) with the infinitive? But it’s not clear to me why it’s called reflexive.
The οἱ goes with λέγειν, “to tell him”, “him” referring to the subject of ἐκέλευεν, hence the reflexive. But ἐκέλευέν οἱ λέγειν functions as a single unit, so that the οἱ slips in between ἐκέλευεν and λέγειν even though as an enclitic it would “properly” come after λέγειν. A nice stylistic detail.
Plato is fond of these old reflexive pronouns, and it would be out of keeping for him to have used either ἑαυτῷ or αὐτῷ here. ἑαυτῷ would be too emphatic, and αὐτῷ would not be reflexive.
(Of course it doesn’t mean to tell himself. ἑαυτῷ would.)
I’m probably misparsing, I thought it was the object of ἐκέλευεν, right?
Λυσίου λόγον ἀκούων ἐκεῖνος οὐ μόνον ἅπαξ ἤκουσεν, ἀλλὰ πολλάκις ἐπαναλαμβάνων ἐκέλευέν οἱ λέγειν, ὁ δὲ ἐπείθετο προθύμως.
Hearing the argument of Lysias, that one (Socrates?) listened not only once, but he (Socrates?) was often ἐπαναλαμβάνων bidding Lysias to speak, and he (Lysias) was obeying eagerly.
But I haven’t looked at the context.
Edit: Oh, I see, you’re saying that it’s the object of λεγειν, not the subject, as I was thinking.
Thanks! The “emphasis” factor was what I missed; also the “improper” placement of the enclitic misled me.
Joel, it’s as I explained. If the meaning were what you took it to be we’d have not οἱ but αυτὸν—accusative and non-reflexive.
Tugodum, As I think you now understand, οἱ is indirect object of λέγειν, and there’s no emphasis, just the opposite.
Michael – Yes. Now it’s perfectly clear. Thanks.
Yes, οἱ is dat sing (enclitic; the non-enclitic form would be emphatic) referring back to Phaedrus (ἐκεῖνος), the subject of the main clause (called “indirect reflexion”) and not Lysias, the subject of the dependent clause (that would be “direct reflexion”).
Plato is fond of these old reflexive pronouns, and it would be out of keeping for him to have used either ἑαυτῷ or αὐτῷ here. ἑαυτῷ would be too emphatic, and αὐτῷ would not be reflexive.
(Of course it doesn’t mean to tell himself. ἑαυτῷ would.)
On ἑαυτῷ and αὐτῷ: οἱ here is the regular Attic usage in older texts and probably an archaizing feature in Plato. I was pointing out that ἑαυτῷ and αὐτῷ would be possible grammatically, expressing indirect reflexion, and probably the more regular 4th c. usage. [It’s not so simple as the following division: ἑαυτῷ would necessarily refer to Lysias (direct), οἱ to Phaedrus (indirect), αὐτῷ to someone else (non-reflexive).]
Reflexives aren’t tidy in Greek, a “labyrinth without a clue” as one editor put it. The main reason is the ambiguity of forms like ΑΥΤΟN and the unreliability of MSS to “properly” separate forms like ἑαυτόν, αὑτόν, αὐτον. Herodotus is a more reliable way to understand classical usage because the Ionic ἑωυτ- forms are generally not confused with αὐτ- forms. Enoch Powell wrote an influential pair of articles on this basis.
We can get into reflexive pronouns more in another thread if we want (they are a good topic!). But for this particular construction, indirect reflexion with a prolative infinitive, all three pronominal forms (the full reflexive ἑαυτῷ etc, semi-reflexive σφίσι etc, and non-reflexive/demonstrative αὐτῷ) are used in Attic prose. The semi-reflexives are favored by Herodotus and Thucydides (the full reflexive mainly used as a possessive genitive or carrying contrast/emphasis) but rare in Xenophon (and never in the singular), reflecting the shift you find in 4th c. inscriptions and Hellenistic papyri.